Allow PR reviewers to comment on *unchanged* files

[willsmythe]

Allow PR review comments on files not included (unchanged) in a pull request. This is useful when a PR reviewer needs to tell the PR author about a change they may have missed in a file that was not changed in that pull request.

From @mabwah-arista

Please consider allowing it on unmodified files too, not just unmodified lines in modified files. There are situations where a change needs to be made in another file that was overlooked. (e.g. "This file needs to be updated in a similar fashion to file B which you updated.")

This discussion was split out from an existing, related discussion 4452 that focused on commenting on any line of a changed file.

[alexykot]

I have a use case in hand that could be solved by this proposed change.

I have a PR that makes some small changes in a specific area of the codebase. This whole area was added recently, but for unrelated reasons, I've not had an opportunity to review this whole area at all when it was added. And since the current PR has drawn my attention to this - I want to use this opportunity, expand the scope of PR and review the whole newly added area altogether, including files that haven't been changed by this specific PR in hand.

This is similar to a code audit, i.e. situation where a review is needed on a codebase in it's present state, without any changes whatsoever, but I guess it would be much easier to allow commenting on any files within a context of PR than to invent a whole new concept of a code audit outside of PR context.

[frogeyedpeas]

Yea this is a much needed feature. Some codebases can be complex and good reviews might quickly grow in scope from just the changes of the dev to a much larger set if the PR being reviewed touches/interacts with many systems indirectly

[EllipticElysium]

I gree this would be very useful as well, has there been any update on this proposed feature?

[Felix14-v2]

Extremely necessary for translators – when you need to correct mistakes in an already existing translation file, but missed by the author of an already opened PR.

[jordanbtucker]

I have another use case for this. A PR contained changes that caused stale code in another file. I couldn't add a comment on the stale code in my PR review.

[EllipticElysium]

@Twizzle1 that's a perfectly valid use case

[skeptrunedev]

I would also like to have this feature. I frequently find myself needing to do this.

[mmcdonald-bw]

This would be very useful for large codebases in which old code needed to be removed/changed but was not... having to reference a line # and/or link to the code in a comment is very inconvenient.

[dancrossnyc]

Agreed that this would be critically useful. It would be great to see this happen!

[glarsennordic]

Adding my support to this request, for exactly the reason brought up by @jordanbtucker

[metal450]

Really surprised this doesn't exist tbh - I thought I simply didn't know how to find it. But yes, it's extremely common during a PR review to find that a dev missed some related changes elsewhere in the codebase, & it seems currently there's no way to flag those. i.e. maybe they're refactoring references to a particular entity, but missed one of those references. As far as I can tell, there's no way to propose that as a change, in the spot where it actually needs to happen.

[dmoka]

Surprised that this feature does not exist in the most widely used collaboration tool in 2022.

Would love to have it, could help a lot to improve the PR review experiences.

[ewuerger]

Wanted to add a code suggestion that needed certain configuration in a file that wasn't changed. Felt unnatural to not be able to add this during the review but in another comment.

[ranbena]

+1 In a PR I want to indicate that some code should be deleted, but since it wasn't touched, there's no way to do so.

[anurag-bug]

+1

[muescha]

This is the wrong place to ask this kind of questions. Try to ask at stackoverflow

[mkryvy-cb]

+1

[mickvav]

I have a use-case for this feature as well.

Before this is implemented I'll probably have to rely on some workaround like this

"Hey, author, run the following on your working tree:

some_command_that_applies_relevant_changes_to_files

"

[David-Morales-Norato]

+1

[GandalfGwaihir]

+1

[heydoyouknowme0]

+1

[erikd234]

i need this feature so bad. Is it in the pipeline

[liam-baker-sm]

I have a more narrow use case, where someone forgot to make a change in a file.
Let's say they changed the name of a class in a header file (e.g. fixing a spelling mistake), but in a few places they forgot to change it in a source file. Right now, it's hard to highlight e.g. "you changed in 4 places and missed the fifth one (100 lines away from any changes)"

[hookdump]

I'd love to have this!!!

[ipv6freely]

Did you guys just forget about this, or...?

[nalbion]

In the GitHub Advanced Security video they're able to create a ````suggestion` with "Outside changed files" targeting line 16 of package.json in GitHub comments. I'd love to know how this is done.

[rcpeene]

+1

[chrisinmtown]

AFAICT this ticket has been open about 2.5 years and I don't see any hints that the GH team is considering this extremely useful feature. Am I on target here?

[jwarnier]

+1

[sirileann]

This feature is very much needed, can anyone of GH team please address this ticket?

[ceshm]

Please add this feature 🙏